6.1 Regime and the opposition as the comparison categories
Political regime (Latin regimen – power, management) is a way of functioning of the political system of a society, a set of means and methods by which the ruling group exercise political and economic power in the country. The political regime determines the nature and methods of relations between the authorities, society and the individual.
The category “political regime” refers to the number of base in Comparative politics. The value of the political regime in the life of a country is extremely high. Its transformation usually results in a sharp shift in the internal and foreign policy of the state.
The category “political regime” calls out the continuing disputes in political science. Some scholars interpret it by extension, identifying with the concept of “political system”. Other authors, in contrast, consider that the political regime is the most important characteristic of the political system, its functional “cut”, defining the means and methods of implementation of power.
In political science there are two basic approaches to understanding the regimes – institutional (or legal) and sociological. Supporters of the first approach focus on formal-legal, procedural characteristics of the exercise of power. At the same time the concept of “political regime” is identified with the concepts of “form of government” or “system of government”. This approach has traditionally been character for French political science, which included the concept of “political regime” in the categorical apparatus of constitutional law.
In our opinion, the sociological approach is more realistic, supporters of which think that it is insufficiently to connect the regime only with the form of government. For example, a well-known French political scientist J.L. Kermonn consider the political regime as a set of elements of ideological, institutional and sociological order, forming a political order of the certain country in a particular period of time.
Many supporters of the sociological approach take into account that the decisions that determine the politics of regime are accepted not only in the framework of the existing political and social norms. The same level of importance has the informal mechanisms of decision-making. Assessment of the political regime intends a comparison of the official constitutional and legal norms to the real political life. The sociological approach allows to understand what is the actual situation in the field of human rights and freedoms, which groups influence the decision-making process.
High importance for determining the nature of the political regime is the fact that if the activity of the political opposition is allowed and in which extent.
Political opposition is the criticism, opposition, counterstained to the current regime in order to change the course held by it.
The opposition can manifest itself as an activity of political parties and movements struggling for the realization of their interests, and in the form of non organizational appointed positions and sentiments. The causes for the formation of the opposition are the property and social differentiation in society, national oppression, the population discontent of with the particular aspects of government policy, the conflict between the central government and the regions, the split of elites.
Supporters of the institutional traditions in the study of political regimes send the opposition out the legal space. In contrast, supporters of sociological approach include it in structure of political regimes, reasonably assuming that critical mood and actions exist at any regime.
For democratic society the political opposition is a natural and logical phenomenon. Having the status and rights, it prevents the monopolization of power, makes political life diverse, and contributes to achieving a balance between competing forces. Opposition creates a feedback mechanism between the citizens and the government authorities, contributing to a normal life and development of society. Regime, banishing the opposition, eventually loses dynamism, and the mechanism of self-development, becoming more rigid and static.
The opposition is divided into systemic and non-systemic. Systemic opposition accepts the basic values and principles of the political regime, but disagrees with the ruling elite in the evaluation of the priorities of the policies and methods of its implementation. In democracies between the ruling elite and the opposition, there is a consensus on the existing state system, political procedures, human rights. Disagreements and conflicts arise about the degree of state intervention in the economy, the size of government spending on social programs, the various aspects of conducted foreign policy. The ruling elite and the opposition system that continuously replace each other at the helm of the power, represents the vast majority of right- and left-of-center parties of the West (conservative, liberal, social democratic, Christian Democratic).
Non-systemic opposition, on the contrary, does not share the principles and values of a basic consensus with the ruling elite, calls for a radical change of the political regime. The irreconcilable oppositionists create serious problems to the regime by refusing to participate in the election, appealing for support of its demands to the international community. Sometimes they go to the armed struggle against the regime. Irreconcilable opposition often is presented by separatist movements, radical and anarchist groupings.
In accordance with the degree of tolerance criterion on the policy and ideology of the regime politicians divide opposition into loyal, semi- loyal and disloyal (intransigent). The regime is stable enough, if the bulk of the opposition forces is loyal to its actions. On the contrary, it is in an unstable state, loses its legitimacy when its elite are unable to resist the intransigent opposition. If the loyal opposition belongs to the system, and disloyal - mostly to the non-systemic opposition, semi-loyal occupies an intermediate position, in some aspects of taking, while others - rejecting the political regime.
Each of these oppositions does not belong to the certain static categories. So, disloyal opposition can evolve, become a system power, and loyal, in contrast, can turn into semi-l or even take an intransigent attitude toward the regime, which it initially supported.
A variety of opposition types determines the breadth of its range of activities - from the critics of the regime by small disagreeing groups to the terrorist activities and violence by intransigent. In turn, the political regime can deal with the opposition at all cost, and can use it as a valve for letting steam off, reducing the level of public discontent and strengthen their own positions.
Type of relationship with the opposition affects the stability of the political regime. The most important task of any regime, regardless of its type, is to maintain stability in society. The regime seeks to impart stability to the political system, making sure the consistency and coordination in the work of its elements. Stability does not prevent changes and reforms. In other words, the regime imparts dynamism to the political system and at the same time contributes to its stabilization, which implies the absence of illegitimate violence in society. However, political regimes far from always can cope with non-system forces and other destabilizing factors. For example, the processes of modernization, accompanied by an increase of the mass requests and strengthening of conflict, can weaken the stability of the regime.
In political science there are stable, medium stable and extremely unstable regimes. The most important criteria for this division are the degree of regime legitimacy (recognition the authorities of power by the large sections of the public), as well as its efficiency, meaning the ability to use the available resources to address urgent problems. The regime is effective when it does not divide the society, and contributes to its consolidation.
When comparing the political regimes we use not only political indicators, but also indicators relating to society as a whole. Thus, the degree of development in society, social and economic relations to a certain extent predetermines the nature of the political regime. By all accounts, the more technical innovations are used in society, the more income and level of education the population has, it is more liberal. There is a great impact of social and cultural factors on the nature of the political regime – the prevailing values in the public consciousness, political preferences and traditions.
The environment influences over the nature and stability level of regimes. The impact of international factors particularly increases at weakening of the regime and its transition to a new state. The influence of external factors via the international organizations may be in different directions – both supporting the stability of the regime and destabilizing it. At the same time, not only the environment has an effect on the regime, but the regime is able to become a powerful factor affecting the environment – both internal and external.
The destabilization of the regime is the antipodes of the stability of the political regime, which is a set of states that are, differ in the degree of destructiveness. Among these states are regime crises, revolution, a social revolution, a civil war.
6.2 Typology of political regimes
The task of political science is not so much to determine the optimal political regime as a comparative analysis of their general and specific characteristics. In this case, the most convenient and widely used method of analysis is a classification. Classification is used for a comparative study of essential features, links, functions, relationships, levels of organization of objects. Interest to the classification of political regimes is as old as the study of politics by itself. There are different classifications of regimes. According to the criteria of tools and methods used by the state during the exercise of power, all political regimes can be divided into democratic and non-democratic regimes.
The most common typology is the separation of political regimes on totalitarian, authoritarian and democratic regimes.
Totalitarian, authoritarian and democratic regimes are differing in several key features:
– The nature and methods of power exercising. In a totalitarian society the universal control and violence dominate; in an authoritarian society inaccessible spaces for control of the state are saved; in a democratic society power is exercised legitimately elected representatives of the citizens;
– from the perspective of the nature of the interaction of society with political power. Under the totalitarian regime the average person merges with the authorities, under the authoritarianism – becomes alienated from it, under the democracy – chooses particular power holders;
– by the field of allowable and forbidden. In a totalitarian society, all that is ordered by power is allowed, everything else is prohibited. In a authoritarian society all that is not related to politics is allowed. In a democracy, everything is allowed, except for acts that are contradictory to the Constitution and the generally accepted legal norms.
A democratic political regime has the most positive characteristics. The concept of “democracy” (from the Greek demos – people, and kratos – power) means the people power. Comprehensive definition of democracy gave the famous American politician Abraham Lincoln: “... Government of the people, by the people and for the people.” Democracy is a form of organization of social life that allows the public to freely choose alternatives of social development.
Democratic government constantly developed and improved, evolved from the ancient city-states to the modern states. Historically, there were two basic models of democracy – direct and representative. Direct (immediate) democracy – is a political decision-making by directly vote of citizens. Board of the direct democracy elections, referendums, meetings. In a representative democracy, citizens delegate decision-making authority to their representatives who are responsible to the voters for these actions.
The essence of democracy is concretized by a certain set of characteristics. Among these characteristics are:
– the recognition of people's source of power, the sovereign. Popular sovereignty is expressed in the fact that people belong to the highest statutory and constitutional authority in the state, he selects and replaces their representatives, involved in the development and adoption of laws through referenda;
– equal right of all citizens to participate in managing the affairs of society and the state;
– systematic electivity of major authorities;
– absolute priority of legal methods of government;
– minorities submit to majority in decision-making and implementation, respect for the rights and interests of minorities;
– political and ideological pluralism, competition of ideas and opinions.
6.3 Typology of non-democratic political regimes
Having considered the essential approaches to understanding the concept of the political regime, we turn to the comparative study of different types of political regimes, starting with a study of their non-democratic version in order hereafter to better understand the capabilities, technologies and prospects of democratization.
Non-democratic regimes became the focus of research of Comparative politics in the framework of modernization theory, the decay of authoritarianism and transits to democracy.
Robert Dahl using two criteria – competition in the struggle for power and the degree of involvement of citizens in the management – identifies four ideal types of political regime: a closed hegemony, open hegemony, competitive oligarchy and polyarchy. Hegemonies are notable for most severe restrictions, banned opposition of any kind, regardless of loyalty of subordinates. Competitive oligarchies allow competition, but only within the elite. Polyarchies are the closest to the democratic ideal. This typology offers objective operationalization of democracy and shows the path transitions to polyarchy: through competitive oligarchy (democracy of the first wave) or through the open hegemony (democracy of the third wave).
Depending on the tasks of political analysis, you can choose one of the many typologies, but still the most widespread typology of political regimes offered by Juan Linz, who identified five basic types of regimes – democratic, authoritarian, totalitarian, post-totalitarian and sultanistic.
Political regimes in the typology of J. Linz are ideal types, and are differ from each other by four main characteristics: on the degree of political mobilization of citizens, the level of pluralism, the degree of ideologization and limitation (constitutionality) of the leader or the ruling group government. The type of regime depends on the degree of political pluralism, since monism (the concentration of power and social control by one factor – totalitarianism sultanism), through a limited pluralism (authoritarianism) to full political pluralism (democracy). The ideologization of the political regime increases from various forms of democracy to totalitarian systems, which at their peak are already directly engaged in indoctrination.
Totalitarian regimes
Prior to the twentieth century in the history of the world it was not the board, which could be characterized as a totalitarian regime. A classic example of a totalitarian regime is considered to be the government, established in Germany in 1930 after coming to power of Adolf Hitler. A special kind of political system was created during a totalitarian regime, which is contained on the leader character. In order to ensure the state domination over society a range of measures and tools is used, where the main thing – is undisguised violence. Actively apply methods of political, economic, ideological, propaganda influence. The leading researchers of totalitarianism were political philosophers Hannah Arendt and Karl Popper.
The main features of totalitarianism were isolated by Carl Friedrich and Zbigniew Brzezinski. It is a totalitarian ideology, single-party system, a monopoly on the media, the system of terrorist police control, and the monopoly on all kinds of armed struggle and organized violence, control under the economy, territorial expansion.
The main task of the totalitarian ideologization – is constant legitimization of the established political regime and its policy. Ideology has to prove that success in achieving the goal is predetermined by laws of history, or the will of nature. The ideology was used as an instrument of mass mobilization, which is embodied in the life of the party. To maintain confidence in the value of own ideology, the party uses propaganda, which is complemented and enhanced by terror. The monopoly on all kinds of armed struggle and organized violence allows totalitarian leaders to get rid of opponents, subjected to repression especially those who could not subdue the other methods. Violence against political opponents took the form of mass terror and genocide, which were aimed at specific groups, categories, classes of people recognized as enemies of the regime.
The totalitarian regime is characterized by the lack of political, economic and social pluralism, effective mobilization and leadership (often charismatic type) with uncertain boundaries of power and a high degree of unpredictability.
Post-totalitarian regimes
Post-totalitarian regime is characterized by the appearance of elements of social and economic pluralism in the absence of political pluralism, the preservation of the official ideology on the back of reducing the degree of ideological bias, the weakening of the mobilization of citizens through existing institutions and preservation the necessary level of conformity to the regime, led by bureaucratic nomenclature and leader recruited from the ruling parties.
In the typology of political regimes, developed by Juan Linz, totalitarianism and postotalitarizm are presented as two different types. The methods of the government in post-totalitarian polity lose a number of key features of totalitarianism. Such regimes are differ from the authoritarian, although in some respects post-totalitarian political, social and economic structures are converted in an authoritarian direction. Usually post-totalitarian regimes develop after the departure of life of a charismatic leader, when the process of routinization of charisma begins (i.e. attempts to preserve the ideals of the former government). As the cult of personality is weakened, the level of bureaucratization of the ruling elite significantly increases. The main characteristics of postotalitarizm are the weakening of police services, or to neutralize them with the help of the army, reapproval of the party role, a gradual process of detotalitarization (i.e. removal the most severe characteristics of the regime) to avoid a radical revolution, prepared by open or disguised opposition.
Political scientists identify three state regimes. Early posttotalitarizm is the closest to totalitarian governance, but differs from it, by the emergence of restrictions on the power of the leader. In the late posttotalitarizm the power is more tolerant to criticism of the regime. Under mature posttotalitarizm all the characteristics of the old ruling system are significantly transformed, unchanged remains only the leading role of the party. Under mature posttotalitarizm social pluralism is developing, even parallel political culture can be formed. Under posttotalitarizm the character of governance is changing. Leaders are no longer charismatic figures. The ruling elite expanded by bureaucrats and technocrats.
The content of post-totalitarian ideology is not much different from the totalitarian, still being considered as the basis for the legitimacy of the regime and the existing political hierarchy.
So, characteristic features of post-totalitarian regimes should include the following: lack of political pluralism, the emergence of elements of social and economic pluralism, the preservation of the official ideology of the comparative decrease ideological bias, the weakening of citizens mobilization through existing institutions, but in providing the necessary level of conformity to the regime, the bureaucratic nomenclature management, recruited from the ranks of the ruling party.
Authoritarian regimes
From the point of view of Juan Linz, authoritarian regime has the following features: limited political pluralism, lack of leadership, clearly developed ideology, lack of political mobilization as a whole and, consequently, a low level of political participation, formally designated and predictable border of power of leader / elite.
Authoritarian regimes are characterized by the preservation of civil society or some important and quite independent of its segments. However, their influence on government action is downsized, because the power prefers to rely on itself. Supervision over the population is not considered to be total, since the authoritarian structures do not tend to come into all sphere of life of society. Therefore, the solution of many social, religious, cultural and family issues is made by the citizens.
At the same time, authoritarian regimes in spades use violence against their opponents and people who pose a direct threat to their existence. To protect the system of government, they can enter rigid press censorship, banning the party, to tighten the legal system, manipulate with the laws to prosecute and punish opponents.
The political elite of the authoritarian regime – is a diverse group with a limited number of professional politicians put forward – on the basis of the assignment or inheritance from the bureaucracy, the army, technocracy, economic, social, religious and other interest groups.
Authoritarianism, as a rule, is characterized by the growth of apathy, depoliticization and alienation from the regime of certain social groups. Society for authoritarian leaders is a hierarchical organization, because the possibility of control over people and order in general represent to them more valuable than freedom, a basic consensus and the involvement of citizens in politics. In terms of authoritarian ideology can be replaced by the religion, traditions and culture, which not only endue the leader with certain legitimacy, but also serve as limiters, though sometimes very weak, of his power.
But still authoritarianism cannot be called as completely deideologized regime. The sign of an authoritarian regime, similar to totalitarianism – is the presence of the sole or privileged party. Such party is usually created on top by the mergence of the various components; thereby it is not just a single, strong and disciplined institution, as under totalitarianism.
Authoritarian regimes with the common features listed above can be classified according to the process of their establishment (revolution, elections, etc), on the justification of the coming to power of the rulers- autocrats (preservation of order, unification of the country, the modernization, the overthrow of the corrupted authorities), according to the type of political elite (military, one-party, religious, monarchic, personal dictatorship). J. Linz suggested typology of authoritarianism, emanating from the four already familiar factors – pluralism, ideologization, mobilization and the constitutionality of the leader government: military-bureaucratic, corporate, pre-totalitarian, post-totalitarian, racial / ethnic democracy.
Sultanistic regimes
Sultanistic regime – is an extreme form of patrimonial state, which is characterized by the personification of leadership, low level of mobilization, lack of guiding ideology and pluralism.
Sultanistic regime is subject to the sultan. Sultanism, according to Linz, -is an extreme form of patrimonial heritable tribal dominance, which does not come down solely to the current regimes of the Middle East and Africa. According to M. Weber, “patriarchal” (and patrimonial – as its variants) domination is characterized by that, along with the system immutable, absolutely sacred norms, the violation of which result in the evil magic or religious consequences, works a kind of lawlessness and favor of lord, based in principle on purely personal, but not objective relations, and therefore irrational. Examples of sultanistic regimes are – Haiti under the rule of Francois Duvalier, and then his son Jean Claude, the Dominican Republic under the rule of Rafael Trujillo, the Central African Republic under the rule of Jean Bedel Bokassa, the Philippines under the rule of Ferdinand Marcos, Zaire under the rule of Joseph Désiré Mobutu, Uganda under the rule of Idi Amin, Iraq under the rule of Saddam Hussein etc.
In sultanistic regime private interweaves with the public, a strong trend towards family dynastic power and continuity can be seen, there is no distinction between the public service and the service to the ruler, the success of officials depend on the personal relationships with the despot, there is completely absence of any rational ideology and, most importantly, sultan is absolutely free in his actions to achieve any purpose. In this regime, there is no place for the opposition and pluralism; there is no sphere in the economy or society that would be protected from tyrannical manifestations of the will of the sultan. A total absence of pluralism – is perhaps the only similarities in totalitarianism and sultanism. But sultanistic regimes are divested of any ideological basis and while some leader statements can seek to be ideological, but they do not form an ideology. Ideas of the leader are brought to the mass notice after he came to power, or in connection with certain actions and in no way limit its power, because it is always corrected according to the situation. Sultan is not limited by anything - neither the ideology nor the laws, nor the principles, nor morally nor traditions. Sultans could declare themselves president for life, the emperor, to appoint their relatives princes and dukes, change their names, impose upon society a dynastic succession of power. In contrast to the authoritarian leaders, the government and the actions of the sultan are quite unpredictable. The rulers from the Duvalier family preferred murders and torture; Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons, attacking Kurdish villages in northern Iraq. Sources claim that the Emperor Bokassa kept the body of his victims in his refrigerator and was a cannibal. President Mobutu (Zaire dictator, is also accused in the cannibalism and a dictator of Uganda Idi Amin and, who dispatching with political opponents, thus overcrows over them.
Typology of B. Geddes
In the late 1990s, political scientists are actively studying the peculiarities of the political institutions in non-democratic regimes and their impact on the transformation of the regime. The founder of the data collection by authoritarian regimes became Barbara Geddes. Based on the belief that authoritarian regimes are different from each other as much as they differ from democracy, it laid the foundation for a systematic analysis of non-democratic regimes and their changes.
Nondemocratic institutions create constraints for actors, who must either work within the existing framework, or change the institutions to achieve their interests. Typology of B. Geddes distinguishes non-democratic regimes for type of actors who take key decisions: the party – in the one-party regime, the army – in military, leader alone in personalistic.
One-party regimes
In the one-party regimes decisions are not taken directly by the leader, but by the supreme body of the party (for example, party convention), and the leader in the hierarchy is at the top, but on the accountable place. Power is concentrated not in the hands of the leader, but at the party elite, and although the leader is the first among equals in the power pyramid, he does not have the absolute power. It is legitimate only for pure types of one-party regimes with no elements of personification of power (sultanistic or neopatrimonial party regimes).
One-party regime – is undemocratic regime, in which the ruling party retains power and receives 2/3 of the votes in the elections, and decisions are taken by the highest authority of the party.
As the main characteristics of one-party regimes B. Geddes points out the irremovability and receiving by party more than 2/3 of the votes, which ensures the power. This expanded definition includes not just one party regime, but also formally multiparty regimes, which is dominated by a single party or a coalition. In the one-party regimes leaders are always limited in actions by the need to coordinate all steps with the party. The recruitment of elites happens only through the party, which controls the access to power.
Specific features of the one-party regimes allow transform them from only internally: in consequence of a split of the party and its electoral defeat.
Thus, the one-party regimes survive thanks to the unity of the ruling (party) elite. This explains the continued existence and the unwillingness of its leaders to take any steps towards democratization.
Military regimes
In military regimes all decisions are taken by the army – an institution, controlling access to all key power positions. Military regimes usually are collective leadership in the form of the of the military junta, which includes the principal officers of various branch of arms, and each member of the junta relies on the support of his troops, and has a certain autonomy and potential to overthrow the regime.
Military regimes usually come to replace democracies, multi-party authoritarian regimes or anarchy. Moreover, the army represents a major threat to civilian dictatorships (28 % of civilian dictatorships were replaced by the military). Overall, 67 % cases of the democracy decayed due to the military actions. Military regimes are differ from civilian by motives of coming to power, variants of the regime institutionalization, ways of quiet from of the bodies of government. Military leaders usually come to power as a result of the veto- coup to protect the national interests, save the state from the civilian politicians (corrupted, ideologically different from the interests of the army) or other real potential threat (civil war, anarchy, dictatorship, revolution, and so on).
The military regime – is undemocratic regime in which the military junta carries out collective leadership.
Military regimes thanks to their illegitimate receiving power (in most cases the revolution), are the least stable authoritarian regimes with an average duration of 10–11 years. From the point of view of B. Geddes, military regimes carry the origin of their own fracture. The biggest threat to the leader of the military regime is other military leaders with opportunities to organize a new coup.
The source of the instability of military regimes often call the group consciousness of army men, for which inherent such corporate values as order, discipline, hierarchy, subordination, unity, cohesion and efficiency of the army. The structure of the military regime corresponds military values and reflects the structure of the army, and the political process is subjected to the norms of the military institution. Military regimes have a rigid hierarchy, the leader is elected by the military junta, and decisions are taken collectively.
The highest value for the military is to preserve the unity of the army and its effectiveness. Any other objectives (ensuring the territorial integrity, order or the overthrow of the dictator) can be achieved only by united, disciplined front.
The split in the army is the biggest problem for the military regime, so to prevent the collapse of the army as an institution is essential to depoliticize the army and the transfer of power to civilians.
<p><strong>Personalistics regimes</strong> (personal dictatorship)</p>
<p>Many political scientists identify personalistics regimes. Indeed, the personification of power inherent to all authoritarian regimes: in half of the military or one-party regimes or their combinations appeared personalistic features and third part of regimes become completely personalized.</p>
<p>In personalistics regimes, despite the military form of the leader and the presence of the ruling party, decision-making and recruitment into the political sphere depend solely on the will of the leader, usually a charismatic type, and no other factor can limit his power. Such leaders come to the power in the conditions of existence of weak political institutions, as well as after their collapse or overthrow.</p>
<p>Personalistics regime – is undemocratic regime in which decisions are taken by the leader, regardless of party. Personalistics regime uses mechanisms of support mobilization are differ from other regimes. If the one-party regimes get supported as a result of the distribution of public goods, military regimes – as a result of repression and threats of repression, the personalistics – through the selective distribution of individual benefits to certain groups. They use a policy of “divide and rule” that prevents cooperation between the groups, necessary for the overthrow of the dictator. In this regime, there is always a repressed class and overpaid class, everyone else, that is sad, can be in any of these. However, membership in these groups is not fixed, history provides plenty of examples where members of the elite went through repressions were deported from the country and came back at will of the dictator. In personalistics regime the logic of minimum winning coalitions dominates, where access to power, gets a small faction close to the leader of the participants. The leader controls his faction, the army, the security machinery, all appointments and advancements, and always, even preventively, may punish for disloyalty to the regime. Therefore, under these regimes coups are rarely carried out. The unlimited concentration of power leads to unpredictability and inefficiency of the policy and change of the ideology at will of the leader. Such a policy is an essential feature of any dictatorship. Due to the fear of being deposed dictator surrounds himself with incompetent colleagues or unable to resist him, which leads to errors in the internal and foreign policy.</p>
<p>Personalistics regimes exist an average 10-15 years, but with elements of the military and one-party regimes “can expect for an eternity” (more than 30 years in research of Geddes). More than two-thirds of the dictators (205 of 303) became victims of coups or other actions of insiders of regime, and first of all it refers to personalistics regimes.</p>
6.4 Institutes of undemocratic regimes
Non-democratic regimes often use such democratic institutions as political parties, elections and parliaments, but they need parties not for contest; elections - not for the transfer of power, and parliaments - not for decision-making. The introduction of these institutions is aimed at preserving a non-democratic regime and the opposition to potential threats of leader's power s. Institutionalization is a process in which the institutions and procedures are relevant, stable and reproducible. Institutionalization in non-democratic regimes creates stability of authoritarian practices and procedures, the so-called institutionalized certainty. In the absence of institutions that limit the leader's authority and ensure the continuity of power, undemocratic regimes may turn into a personalistics, in which each decision is taken by the leader. Thus, the presence of the party of power and non-competitive elections is not only the hallmark of communistic regimes, but also one of the proven and is still used mechanisms to retain power of undemocratic leader.
The introduction of formal institutions is aimed at only preserving a non-democratic regime and the opposition to potential threats of leader's power.
Parliaments in non-democratic regimes allow to articulate opposition moods without open resistance to the regime. Authoritarian parliaments are as well. As the party, help to keep authoritarian regimes: first, reduce the likelihood of replacing one dictator by another, and, secondly, by providing access of potential or real opposition to power structures, prevent the emergence of requirements for regime change uncontrolled by a leader.
Authoritarian regimes often introduce the institution of elections. Elections are needed to legitimize the regime, for concessions to opposition, to overcome the collapse of the regime and, above all, to obtain information about the real support of the regime and the distribution of this support. Authoritarian elections are needed to save the regime, as it prevents the unification of the opposition, only part of which can participate in the elections, as well as demonstrate the power of the government and retain loyalty to the regime. By participating in the elections, the opposition dooms itself to support the existing regime rather than its violent overthrow as the result of coup or revolution. Although in authoritarian regimes the opposition parties always lose elections. Authoritarian leaders agree for testing by the election solely to reduce the threat of non-electoral overthrow.
Thus, political parties, parliaments and elections are key elements able to retain the undemocratic regime by non-violent ways. These institutions do not lead to a change of leadership, they are not tools of vertical responsibility, but they are needed for the resolution of intra-regime conflicts and prevent the potential destabilization of regime. According to B. Geddes, from the “viewpoint of the dictator, party of support and the elections – are the key elements of his personal survival strategy”. Elections and parliaments share the opposition, as they provide a selective co-optation of loyal factions (parties) and prevent the emergence of a united front oppositional to the regime.
6.5 Non-democratic regimes and transitions to democracy
Research of A. Przeworski and J. Gandhi shows that non-democratic regimes tend to reproduce themselves: new military regimes appear after the military regimes, and to replace the civil (including a one-party) dictatorships come new civilian dictators, but not democracies.
In the database of B. Geddes data only 34 % of the regimes switched to another type of authoritarianism. One-party regimes can be transformed into a democratic, limited multi-party regimes in the multiparty regimes with a dominant party and military regimes, as a rule, switched to a limited multiparty regime.
The mechanism of this development is simple: autocrats always find themselves faced with two threats – on the part of the ruling elite and on the part of the outsiders of society. The traditional way of fighting with visible or supposed threats with the use of violence and repression is, first of all, quite expensive, and secondly, is not always effective in preventing new conspirations and attempts to coups, and, thirdly, further undermining the legitimacy (including in the international arena) of illegitimate regime.
One party regime are rarely transformed into democracy, only 19 % of the regimes change over to democracy, and the rest decayed either as a result of military coups (39 %), or transformed into regimes with dominant parties (33 %). Regimes with the dominant parties demonstrate the best performance – 29 % change over to democracy.
As the dominant strategy of one-party regimes is aimed at preventing protests and demands for change, only if the case of “external” or “below” pressure the leaders of one-party regimes are ready to begin liberalization and further democratization, at that only one-party regimes under the pressure have the potential to the negotiating transit. This is due to the fact that, on the one hand, attempts to retain power lead to concessions in the democratization process, and on the other hand, negotiations can provide presentable departure and prevent the violent overthrow. Thanks to such tactics of initiatives preservation in the transit of many former parties hegemons manage to keep their positions in the new democracies and pseudo-democracies (new competitive system with a dominant party)
In the military regimes democratic transits can begin after internal disagreements and splits, and have a better chance of success, especially when re-democratization. Military regimes, in contrast to other non-democratic regimes, are ready for reforms, and any attempt to save by the military regime of its power usually comes from a desire to preserve the unity of the army and get amnesty for past crimes.
Military regimes can agree on the transfer of power to civilian rule and democratization in the case of receipt of guarantees for their corporate interests and the lack of prosecution for crimes against humanity. Taking into account that such a guarantee is easier to obtain if the military regime itself begins the transition to democracy, the optimal models for transit are transformations and change trans shift (transition model of S. Huntington). The least desirable from the point of view of the military leaders model of the replacement is possible when the inefficient military regime with split elite does not take steps towards democracy and is opposed to the wide anti-regime mobilization of the masses or loses the war. The results of the military regime changes: 33 % of the changes led to democracy, 27 % – to regimes with dominant parties, 8 % – to one-party regimes.
Under the personalistic regime all decisions are always controlled by the leaders, while opposition factions or personality, in rare cases appearing in company of the leader, virtually have no chance to organize any revolution or a successful transit. The oppositions under the regime of personal dictatorship in case of victory and the subsequent displacement of the leader will have more advantages than the opposition factions in the one-party regime, but the risks of failure are deterrents, so under normal circumstances, the opposition rarely opposes the dictator. Most personalist regimes disintegrates after the death of the leader, so to preserve the succession the leaders often create parties, retain parliaments and introduce the institution of elections, which may lead to the transformation of personalist regimes into one-party or dominant party regimes. Geddes analysis demonstrates that personalistic regimes are less inclined to start democratic reforms and implement pact transit. Decays of personal dictatorships, in such a way, are often made only by violent means as a result of mass protests, revolutions, coups, civil wars and foreign interference, and do not always democracy comes to replace the dictatorship.
The most favorable for the development of democracy is the regime of limited multiparty system, “competitive authoritarianism” in the terminology of S. Levitsky and L.Way or “electoral authoritarianism”, identified by A. Schedler. Competitive authoritarian regimes are semi democracies of different types – from the approaching electoral democracies of various types – from the approaching electoral democracy on the level of pluralism, competitiveness and respect for civil rights, but violating the criteria for democratic elections, systems with a dominant party to personalist regimes, as well as a number between. The main difference between these regimes from autocracy – is a willingness to in a to treat in non-judgmental manner to the functioning (but not win) of the opposition parties, but even that, according L. Daymond, creates the conditions for a future breakthrough to electoral democracy.
Control questions
Questions for discussion